As a palaeontologist, I'm constantly confronted with the question about the value of the kind of work that I do. There are areas of science that are clearly goal-directed, particularly when it comes to questions of technology and applications in day-to-day life. But my science isn't likely to affect the daily lives of most people, but it is the general population that pays for my kind of work. One of the primary defences of basic science that I have seen time and again is that we simply don't know what science needs to know. That is, basic science deals with what I call "Rumsfeld's Problem". However, I have always found that argument to be unpersuasive. By "unpersuasive" I don't mean that the argument is either wrong, misbegotten, or even the least important reasoning. Indeed, it could be one of the strongest arguments in favour of saying we don't fund basic science enough! Rather, it feels like the argument least likely to persuade a person questioning the value of basic science in the first place. There are those, of course, who will never be persuaded of the value of basic science. But there could be those who are skeptical but willing to consider possible reasons. When the case of "Rumsfeld's Problem" doesn't persuade, other views on the question may be valuable to consider: For one, other sciences are 'checking each other out': No science operates in a vacuum. The connections between palaeobiology, neuroscience, and atomic physics may be tenuous, but they're there. This concept, known as consilience, was made popular in the last century by E.O. Wilson. A few years ago, someone published a fabulous technicolour diagram of the citation links between different scientific disciplines, showing indeed that all sciences are connected. The sheer complexity of science means that serious disjunction between any two disciplines—regardless of their applications—can send ripples through the whole network. If the well-corroborated stratigraphic patterns of the fossil record don't line up with radiometric dating, this could as well signal problems with the assumptions of atomic physics as it does problems with the geologic record. A far-fetched scenario, but one that shows how two very disparate disciplines could quickly find themselves in conflict, leading to new questions and avenues of research. A societal perspective I've not yet seen put forward is the idea that the findings of science are good for our brains. This is an idea I hope to explore more here. There is evidence, for instance, that interaction with nature is good for cognitive restoration. One of the underlying explanatory theories is that the stimulation provided by interaction with nature are enough to divert our attention from day-to-day anxieties, while at the same time providing a peaceful experience. Interest in basic science may have similar effects (it is, after all, a kind of interaction with nature!), but also asks us to flex and extend our existing cognitive abilities, stretching ourselves a bit beyond our current limits. In effect, it is possible that basic science is simply good for you.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Martin d brazeauPalaeontologist, fieldworker, sometimes phylogenetic programmer. Transplanted Canadian in UK. All views are my own. How to pronounce my name? Rhymes with "bureau" or "chateau". He/him/his. Archives
December 2022
Categories
All
|